- There’s a tangible impact of 70mm/IMAX cameras and no CGI
- It’s a walk-out-of-the-theater masterpiece (my 5th of the decade I believe) but you’re not aware of it in the first 20 minutes like birdman or la la land– it takes the entirety of the time and time the finale to fully appreciate
- Nolan is smart to fill many frames with extras—it not only helps add realism to the dire situation in the narrative but, more importantly, gives such an epic scope and multiple visual focal points to the large landscape, establishing shots, and 70mm/imax longer lens
- For the beauty of the aerial shots- which I’m not sure have been ever matched- my closest comparison might be the gorgeous work in out of Africa and the English patient (both of whom went on to win best picture and best cinematography in 1985 and 1996)- I kept thinking of the howard hughes line from leo in the aviator about how the plane battles needed clouds for context and scope but clearly clouds are no match for the horizon and gorgeous open sea shot here by Hoyte van Hoytema and Nolan
- The film’s straight narrative is really a series of deadlines and brilliant manipulation of space and time through editing—I think this may bother some diehard Nolan fans who fell in love with him because of his unique narratives and clever ideas on memory and perception— as a visceral experience though it’s hard to top and although it’s done differently (long takes and floating camera) Cuaron achieves much of the same effect in gravity (there’s more depth to both of these films than some critics will recognize)
- Brilliantly Nolan chooses to go at this film from land, sea and air- and manipulates the time beautifully—it’s such a calculate use of narrative structure (would you expect anything else from Nolan?)- very unlike other ingenious narrative restructuring efforts like rashoman, tarantino’s work or Iñárritu work
- It’s much closer to a pure style exercise then Nolan has ever been. There’s no set up here aside from the some tangent comments along the way and the opening title card preface—the entire film doesn’t really need a lot of words actually
- It could be Hans Zimmer’s greatest achievement with the musical score and he’s done some astonishing work before in dark knight, inception, gladiator, thin red line, rain man, lion king– he’s an all-timer now
- There’s so much depth there with the musical score and the narrative time construct mechanism
- Even the plane landing at the end with the wheels coming out isn’t done simply— there’s no wasted sequence in the entire film- this is a dazzling mini-film and exemplary use of film montage and editing
- I’ve said before that Nolan’s greatest strengths are his establishing shots and (mainly) his cross cutting (particularly with multi-narratives) and this film is basically this for the entire running time instead of an elaborate and complicated set-up with some of this in-between and a finale
- I think for many when deciding on whether this is his best work to date it will come down to if you prefer Nolan the director (master editor and montagist to beautiful imagery) or the screenwriter
- There are many films to compare it to- the work of Leone (another great all-time montagist) – the way we have 3 parts that are separate but connected and come together has to be compared to once upon a time in the west and the good, the bad, and the ugly—but perhaps the main film I think about is intolerance with how Griffith weaves his stories together slowly at first and then ramps up the pace—marvelous
- As a critic and devotee to cinema- I personally kind of love that we have a clear masterpiece here that’s not all about tracking shots- I was starting to feel like I was married to that kind of work (birdman, la la land, etc) and without it I wouldn’t be able to call a modern day film a big masterpiece- love to see that isn’t the case here and there are clearly many ways to create film art and moving the camera like cuaron does is just one such vehicle
- It goes without saying at this point but you are watching an auteur who is it absolute and total control—certainly the comparisons to a watchmaker or a chess strategist aren’t wrong
- I doubt if I’ll see a more beautifully photographed film all year and I’m positive I won’t see a better edited one
- The performances are not the headline here but they are all very good. Branagh would be my single favorite if forced to pick as his face and reaction is a the Kuleshov effect reaction shot more often than anyone else and he’s great at it
- What can you make of Hardy here? Yet another brilliant film where we don’t see his face for basically the entire thing (dark knight rises, mad max: fury road). I will say that his scene at the end with the plane on fire- being the face of the hero- is huge and not just any actor could pull that off- you need a big star and preferably a masculine one
- It is an all-time war film but as much a Nolan film as anything he’s done- it reminds me of the thin red line in that way where the canvass of the war is just a launching point for malick and nolan’s unique expression of cinematic style
- The best edited film in years
- Masterpiece
First post on your blog for me–looks great by the way–and obviously we’re totally on the same page about Dunkirk. I’m hoping to make the trek out to Toronto this weekend to see it in 70mm Imax… expecting a life changing experience!
Thank you, sir! I’m very happy we’re on the same page here with dunkirk
A film more like a symphony of images and sounds than a film itself. I salute you for #4 of the decade, although I’m not done with my list and don’t know exactly where it’ll end up. But I can proudly say it’s one of the masterpieces with a capital M.
@Nathan– “symphony of images and sounds”— love that. Happy to hear we’re on the same page here. Thanks for sharing. When you’re done your list please share it.
Of course ill share it! As far as I see we are also on the same page in The Tree of Life, The Master, Roma and probably all of the top 10 and many outside of it, I don’t know about the numbers they’ll end up but expect my list to be very “in agreement” with yours.
@Nathan– Sounds like a good list- haha. Invariably the bulk of the discussion tends to land on the films we differ on– that can be good, too. Sometimes there’s something I’m not seeing in a specific film or just a film I need to rewatch. Hearing a different perspective can help.
@Nathan
I like the cut of your jib.
Have you read Richard Brody’s negative review on Dunkirk and why you think many critics struggled with it ? I obviously disagree with them.
@Cinephile— I just read it- I believe for the first time but maybe I came across it in 2017. I don’t think too much of it if I’m being honest. Brody is a great writer and when he’s correct on a film, he’s worth a read– but here he’s applying criteria that Nolan doesn’t aim for (making it a character study). It’d be like asking Taxi Driver or Citizen Kane (films that do that I think– unquestionably well) to tell a mosaic of brilliant parallel editing. I wonder what Brody would say about Battleship Potemkin– a film that shares much with Nolan’s Dunkirk. You certainly couldn’t argue Eisenstein’s masterpiece is a great character study.
I’d also have to take a bit of an issue with your characterization that “many critics struggled with it”– I’m thrilled you disagree with those who did but I don’t think many did. Dunkirk has a 94 on metacritic– simply one of the best scores for a first-run film– ever. It has 93% positive on Rotten Tomatoes– it did very well on the 2017 year-end lists. This is certainly very close to consensus, universal praise. At least as close (or nearly) as we ever get.
@Drake, I’m definitely with you on Brody’s review. As for the “many critics struggled” well my bad, you’re right here, I was mostly thinking some reviews in my country where critics had problems of the type “not emotional connection with the characters” but as you said the criticism should be on what Nolan aimed for and not what he didn’t.
@Cinephile– Sounds good– and yeah I do the same thing- I get frustrated with the few dissenters —I’m like “how could anyone who knows what they’re talking about not think this is good?” but the truth is the majority of the critics usually do get it right. Brody’s take is the outlier.
Richard Brody is a notorious contrarian and cantankerous old crank. Almost like a much smarter, better writing, Armond White.
@Matt Harris- I haven’t read much reviews from Brody, so probably you know his work better but from what I have read he has extremely bat takes on many great films.
What’s your opinion of Jonathan Rosenbaum and generally critics who support foreign and international cinema because I can’t get behind many of those lists and films.
Rosenbaum is another who I consider a very good and often insightful writer about film but his evaluations are severely hit or miss.
By contrast someone like Peter Travers is severely lacking as a writer and seldom offers insight suited for more than a blurb on the movie poster… but he has pretty excellent taste.
Since we’re talking about Dunkirk it’s time to ask.
I recently saw JFK again i remembered what you said about being a milestone in movie editing.
How would you compare Dunkirk to JFK? is it better edited?
@Aldo- I don’t know about better- but they both feel like they’re the watershed moments of their decade on editing– which put them on a short-list for all-time important films in the category
This this film an example of elite film form? That is the three structure story with the ground, the water, and in the air.
*Is this film an example of elite film form? That is the three structure story with the ground, the water, and in the air.
@James Trapp– absolutely